Silverberg: Hope still matters to voters

By KATHY SILVERBERG

Published: Friday, October 26, 2012 at 1:00 a.m.

Last Modified: Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 1:46 p.m.

Whenever the contest is between an incumbent and a challenger, it becomes somewhat of a choice between the known and the unknown. Generally, people are more comfortable with the known but if the incumbent is undesirable, then it would seem logical to take a chance on the unknown.

That is what it has come down to in the presidential election. Many of those who choose to vote for Mitt Romney are doing so because they have not been pleased with the current administration, hence, the "Repeal Obama" billboards seen locally and the bumper stickers, "Defeat Obama."

Certainly, some who will side with the challenger believe Romney will do a better job, judging by his past performance in a variety of roles, what he has said he will do as president, or both.

It seems that every election cycle I hear people say they are voting "against" a candidate rather than for one, and this race is no different. The economy is struggling through an anemic recovery, though locally signs seem to be more encouraging. The nation is still mired in an unwinnable war, though both candidates seem to agree to the stated withdrawal by 2014 even if the vice-presidential challenger Paul Ryan is critical of deadlines. There are dire warnings about the health of Medicare, about the national debt, about the defense budget.

The skies are cloudy to say the least and that would point to trouble for the incumbent. A study done by the economist John Nofsinger in 2007 indicated that when the stock market is up and the social mood of the country is optimistic, the party in power wins. He suggests that stock market returns over the three years prior to the election are a key indicator.

Hardly anyone would say the mood of the country is optimistic, but the stock market has been on a distinctly upward trajectory since the bottom in March 2009. So far, October has been a little shaky but October often is. So where does that leave the prognosticators?

It leaves them where the pollsters are, conflicted.

And perhaps that is a metaphor for where the nation finds itself at this critical juncture.

President Obama is no longer the poster child for hope. His message of working across partisan lines toward a better America that worked so well for him four years ago has been largely abandoned this time around. He finds himself on the defensive for his handling of the economy, for dealing with international partners, for failing to offer a clear vision for the future and, of course, for his health care plan.

His opponent, on the other hand, is seen by many as a rich, ruthless businessman who cannot relate to the challenges of average Americans, who is not adequately prepared to take on the foreign policy demands of the presidency and whose economic plan is not likely to result in the savings he has promised.

Are the voters once again left to choose the lesser of two evils or is it just that our campaign structure is designed to demonize the opponent rather than articulating a plan for a better tomorrow?

Ever since 1972, fewer than 60 percent of eligible voters have cast ballots in the presidential election, though the downward trend has been somewhat reversed in the past two cycles. A recent survey conducted in California found that those who do not vote feel the candidates are not speaking to them, that the campaigns bear little relevance to their lives.

They have a point, and yet, even those who don't vote or vote infrequently told the poll takers they consider voting an important part of being a good citizen.

So where is the disconnect? Why don't people happily cast their votes from a position of strength, believing that the candidate of their choice will make this a better nation, its people more united and enjoying an improved quality of life?

Could it be that the cynicism is a byproduct of the divisive campaigns or is it just the way democracy works? I choose to believe there is more truth in the former and I also believe it doesn't have to be this way. Obama won on a message of hope in a very dark hour and though it can be argued he did not deliver, at least not up to expectations, he presented a reason to vote for something instead of against.

When campaigns are more about aspirations, about vision and leadership, this nation will be a step closer to fulfilling its limitless potential for good.

Kathy Silverberg is the former publisher of the Herald-Tribune's southern editions. Email: kathy.silverberg@comcast.net

<p>Whenever the contest is between an incumbent and a challenger, it becomes somewhat of a choice between the known and the unknown. Generally, people are more comfortable with the known but if the incumbent is undesirable, then it would seem logical to take a chance on the unknown.</p><p>That is what it has come down to in the presidential election. Many of those who choose to vote for Mitt Romney are doing so because they have not been pleased with the current administration, hence, the "Repeal Obama" billboards seen locally and the bumper stickers, "Defeat Obama."</p><p>Certainly, some who will side with the challenger believe Romney will do a better job, judging by his past performance in a variety of roles, what he has said he will do as president, or both.</p><p>It seems that every election cycle I hear people say they are voting "against" a candidate rather than for one, and this race is no different. The economy is struggling through an anemic recovery, though locally signs seem to be more encouraging. The nation is still mired in an unwinnable war, though both candidates seem to agree to the stated withdrawal by 2014 even if the vice-presidential challenger Paul Ryan is critical of deadlines. There are dire warnings about the health of Medicare, about the national debt, about the defense budget.</p><p>The skies are cloudy to say the least and that would point to trouble for the incumbent. A study done by the economist John Nofsinger in 2007 indicated that when the stock market is up and the social mood of the country is optimistic, the party in power wins. He suggests that stock market returns over the three years prior to the election are a key indicator.</p><p>Hardly anyone would say the mood of the country is optimistic, but the stock market has been on a distinctly upward trajectory since the bottom in March 2009. So far, October has been a little shaky but October often is. So where does that leave the prognosticators?</p><p>It leaves them where the pollsters are, conflicted.</p><p>And perhaps that is a metaphor for where the nation finds itself at this critical juncture.</p><p>President Obama is no longer the poster child for hope. His message of working across partisan lines toward a better America that worked so well for him four years ago has been largely abandoned this time around. He finds himself on the defensive for his handling of the economy, for dealing with international partners, for failing to offer a clear vision for the future and, of course, for his health care plan.</p><p>His opponent, on the other hand, is seen by many as a rich, ruthless businessman who cannot relate to the challenges of average Americans, who is not adequately prepared to take on the foreign policy demands of the presidency and whose economic plan is not likely to result in the savings he has promised.</p><p>Are the voters once again left to choose the lesser of two evils or is it just that our campaign structure is designed to demonize the opponent rather than articulating a plan for a better tomorrow?</p><p>Ever since 1972, fewer than 60 percent of eligible voters have cast ballots in the presidential election, though the downward trend has been somewhat reversed in the past two cycles. A recent survey conducted in California found that those who do not vote feel the candidates are not speaking to them, that the campaigns bear little relevance to their lives.</p><p>They have a point, and yet, even those who don't vote or vote infrequently told the poll takers they consider voting an important part of being a good citizen.</p><p>So where is the disconnect? Why don't people happily cast their votes from a position of strength, believing that the candidate of their choice will make this a better nation, its people more united and enjoying an improved quality of life?</p><p>Could it be that the cynicism is a byproduct of the divisive campaigns or is it just the way democracy works? I choose to believe there is more truth in the former and I also believe it doesn't have to be this way. Obama won on a message of hope in a very dark hour and though it can be argued he did not deliver, at least not up to expectations, he presented a reason to vote for something instead of against.</p><p>When campaigns are more about aspirations, about vision and leadership, this nation will be a step closer to fulfilling its limitless potential for good.</p><p>Kathy Silverberg is the former publisher of the Herald-Tribune's southern editions. Email: kathy.silverberg@comcast.net</p>